GPS Part IV: CCA as a Dot Com Bubble

Many states and colleges are engaged with the Guided Pathways to Success (GPS) program and other methodologies supported by Complete College America (CCA). In this post in the series, I will suggest that this observation if essentially true:

The influence of CCA will be similar to the dot com bubble of the 1990s.

In other words, the CCA is advocating dramatic action using unproven methods for a large group of investors (states and colleges). Some methods involve components which have sufficient evidence for scaling, but the magnitude of change being created exceeds any reasonable prediction for a positive return on investment. Even if the labels (like GPS) stick, the market will collapse within a few years as states and colleges get data indicating the large amounts of money are being lost with little gain for students.

To understand why this observation is made, take a look at a quote from the CCA materials:

But game changers don’t spontaneously happen: They are caused by people who act boldly and decisively in response to challenges. http://completecollege.org/the-game-changers/

The ‘game changer’ reference is designed to pull in the big investors; investors are drawn to promises of large returns, especially when there is an apparently simple plan for the large returns promised. The declaration of ‘boldly and decisively’ is a propaganda tool meant to turn off any inclination to be skeptical of the rationale for the components of the plan.

The question is this: Why do we need ‘game changers’ in the first place? Few of us would like the process of education being equated with any game or set of games; let’s set that valid concern aside. “Game changer” is defined (Merrian-Webster) as “a newly introduced element or factor that changes an existing situation or activity in a significant way”. Some components of the methods suggested by the CCA would meet this definition (such as ‘full time is 15’); however, the methods are more accurately summarized as “changing the game” rather than “game changers”.

The push toward GPS and other ‘game changers’ is accompanied by a rationale that sounds reasonable to those with smaller amounts of understanding of culture of our institutions … community colleges in particular. I am reminded of the many novice arguments presented by my students for why their incorrect mathematics was actually ‘correct’: such arguments convince other novices, and perhaps some professionals who turned of their skeptical (critical) functions.

In spite of the obvious and reasonable doubts about the “CCA Game”, their marketing has worked very well. Several states are deep in to the “CCA com” (like dot com) bubble. The press for CCA has been extremely one-sided … partially because they create much of the press themselves. No organization has stood up to question the CCA messages, even though the messages lack significant professional history.

I commend the CCA for a hustle well played. It’s disappointing that so many leaders and policy makers have been hustled like this. The prediction for the collapse of this CCA bubble is supported by the track record of prior changes … prolonged change tends to be consistent with, and supported by, the work of professional organizations. The CCA bubble is supported by a network of change agents, much like the ‘dot com’ bubble.

The unanswered question: How long will the CCA bubble last?

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

college completion | Jack Rotman | July 15, 2015 11:04 am

5 Comments

By schremmer, July 15, 2015 @ 5:36 pm

Re: “prolonged change tends to be consistent with, and supported by, the work of professional organizations”

True, but was there any one of those “prolonged change” that was measurably beneficial to the students?

-Precalculus as a replacement for College Algebra and Trig?

-The 1987 NSF Calculus Curriculum Development Program? For instance see, see All other current calculus projects?

-Developmental Mathematics?

-Applications driven mathematics?

-???

The way these change go is:

1. I have that incredibly good idea on how to make “it” more …
2. I don’t discuss this with anybody and just carry it out.
3. It is of course a huge success.
4. A few years later ….

1. I have that incredibly good idea on how to make “it” more …
etc
By Jack Rotman, July 16, 2015 @ 9:55 am

The ‘measurably beneficial’ is notoriously difficult in our business; one person’s “benefit” is another person’s “problem”. We can say that thousands of students in developmental math courses are now working in a course with significant emphasis on reasoning and less emphasis on procedures, based on the dozens (over 100) of colleges who are using learning outcomes from the New Life course models. This intended curriculum will be an improvement, in most situations (IMHO).
By schremmer, July 15, 2015 @ 5:41 pm

Oops. Re 1987 NSF, see
Harvard Consortium
By Laura Bracken, July 15, 2015 @ 6:14 pm

And how many students will be harmed by this bubble? How many will endure remediation that is largely procedural? How many wll receive college credit for coursework that is equivalent to a decent middle school curriculum? How many will be funneled into a “job track,” rather than a path of seeking an education?

What I find most reprehensible in this process is the lowering of performance expectations (changing content and assessment) and then claiming success (increases in course completion and retention).

I am not surprised by the hustle. Many of the policy makers conceive of higher education as analogous to an assembly line or an input/output function machine. Of course, students (especially community college students) are not parts waiting to be assembled. They struggle, triumph, and fail for reasons often outside of the construct or purview of these policy makers. (Child care, especially for sick children, anyone, anyone?).

CCA has created a strangling obligation for faculty of data collection, poor statistical analysis, and endless meetings. For example, as part of our CCA implementation, we must pick an “artifact” from each of our gen Ed math classes and judge student performance once every three years. Aside from whether this process could influence instruction or results, the proposal advanced by the planning committee was to use a sample of student work, even though the number of students made it necessary to evaluate the entire population. When this was pointed out, the response was “everyone else on campus is doing this! Why are you making this so difficult?” Stubborn mathematicians.

Check the box. Even though it is a farce and wastes both money and faculty time.
By Jack Rotman, July 16, 2015 @ 9:52 am

Good points, Laura. I wish you the best in enduring the process you are involved with!

Developmental Mathematics Revival!

Bringing a new vitality to college mathematics 2011 to 2019